JUDGMENT : 1. This VAT Tax Appeal under Section 53 of the VAT Tax Act, 2002, is directed against order dated 17.08.12 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal in Appeal No. A-624/CTAB/08 (State), whereby the Appellate Board had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 19.02.08 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur in Appeal No. 57/07/State. 2. The facts giving rise to this VAT Tax Appeal may briefly be stated thus: Appellant Prakash Metal Craft Industries is a proprietorship concern engaged in the manufacturing and sale of agricultural implements. The Assessing Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, assessed tax of Rs. 3,29,705/- @ 4.6% on taxable turnover of Rs. 71,67,500/- upon gross turnover of Rs. 3,63,32,501/- under Entry 73 of Part V of Schedule II. This taxable turnover has been determined on account of sale of tractor trolleys which had been sold to the agriculturists through the dealers/distributors. The learned Assessing Authority had disallowed the claim of the assessee for tax exempted sales of agricultural implements - “Tractor trailers for use in agricultural purpose”. It was held by the Assessing Authority that sales made to the dealers could not be treated as being qualified for tax free sales. The order made in this regard by the assessing authority dated 30.12.06 is annexure A-2. The aforesaid order was upheld by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Jabalpur vide order dated 19.02.08 (Annexure A-3). The order dated 19.02.08 was affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board vide impugned order dated 17.08.12 (Annexure A-1), holding that unless trailer had been directly purchased by agriculturist, it could not be held that the trailer had been used for agricultural purpose. Since, the assessee/appellant had not sold the trailer to the agriculturist directly, no exemption could be granted. 3. This VAT Tax Appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law: "Whether under the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Board is right in law and had valid material to hold that Tractor trailers, sold by the appellant were not 'for use in agricultural purpose' and not entitled for exemption from payment of tax under Entry No. 1 of Schedule I of the Act, read with Entry No. 55 of notification No. A-3--6-2000/ST-V(52), dated 17-07-2000, being 'Tractor trailers for use in agricultural purpose'?'' 4. In support of this claim, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Entry No. I in Schedule I under section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act and notification No. A-3-46-2000/ST-V(52), dated 17-07-2000. The Schedule I effective from 15.03.00 enlists the goods exempted from commercial tax under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act. Placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Dalmia Dadri Cement in AIR 1988 SCC 342 , it has been argued that the expression “for use must mean intended for use”. Thus, it has been contended that learned Appellate Board has grievously erred in holding that the trailers not sold directly to the agriculturists but to dealers/distributors would not qualify for tax exemption. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General for Revenue, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. 6. In view of rival contentions, the Court has to mainly consider whether sale of trailers not directly to the agriculturists but to the dealers/distributors, would qualify for exemption from tax under Entry No. 55 of the notification No. A-3-46-2000/ST-V(52), dated 17-07-2000 made pursuant to Entry No. I of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994? Entry No. I of the Schedule I appended to Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, which came into effect from 15.03.2000 provides a list of goods exempted from tax under Section 15 of the Act. The Entry I reads as follows:-- "1. Agricultural implements as specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette". 7. In pursuance of the requirement under Entry I of Schedule I appended to the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994, the State Government vide notification No. A-3--6-2000/ST-V(52), dated 17-07-2000 notified 56 numbers of implements as "agricultural implements” for the purpose of the said entry. The Implement No. 55 reads as follows:-- "55. Tractor trailers for use in agricultural purpose." (emphasis supplied) 8. In the opinion of this Court, the fate of this VAT Tax Appeal depends upon the interpretation of the expression "for use" occurring in Entry No. 55 of the notification dated 17.07.2000. 9. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana versus Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited (Supra), while interpreting Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 has held that the expression "for use" must mean "intended for use". 9. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana versus Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited (Supra), while interpreting Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 has held that the expression "for use" must mean "intended for use". It was further observed that if the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods sold as were actually used by the undertaking in the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the phraseology used in the exemption clause would have been different as, for example, "goods actually used" or "goods used". The relevant para 10 of the judgment is herein below reproduced: "10. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bana that, in order to get the exemption it must be shown that the goods in question, namely, the cement supplied by the assessee in this case was actually used in the generation or distribution of electrical energy. It must be noted that the important words used in the relevant provisions are "goods for use by it in the generation or distribution of such energy" (emphasis supplied by us). On a plain reading of the relevant clause it is clear that the expression "for use" must mean "intended for use". If the intention of the legislature was to limit the exemption only to such goods sold as were actually used by the undertaking in the generation and distribution of electrical energy, the phraseology used in the exemption clause would have been different as, for example, "goods actually used" or "goods used". 10. Reverting back to the facts of the case at hand, we find that the tractor trailers were ultimately intended to be used for agricultural purpose. It was immaterial whether these were sold directly to the agriculturists or to the agriculturists through dealers/distributors. It was not necessary for the assessee to establish that the trailers sold were actually used for the agricultural purpose. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, learned appellate board erred in holding that tax exemption could be granted only in respect of the trailers sold directly to the agriculturists and where the trailers were sold through distributor/dealer, the exemption from tax was available to such dealer/distributor when he would have sold such trailers to the agriculturists. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal passed in Case No. A-624/CTAB/08/(State), is hereby set aside.